Inconsistency. The bane of propositions.
Hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation. It is necessary to have a consistent hermeneutic. Sometimes a prejudicial presupposition influences a person's hermeneutic...as in the case of Oneness Pentecostals. Let me elaborate...
They start with the presupposition that God is uni-personal, which causes a hermeneutical inconsistency when one turns to the New Testament writings.
They believe that God is uni-personal because of what is explicit in the Old Testament (OT). It is obvious that when God acts He demonstrates "personal" attributes. He communicates with Moses. He has great affection for David. So forth and so on. This is an explicit account which demands the exegete (interpreter) to apply "personal" attributes to God, therefore concluding that God is "personal." They take the idea of "personal" to mean "uni-personal" or "one person".
But when it comes to the New Testament (NT) the explicit is undermined by their inference. God as one person? It is an implication that denies what is explicit. The interactions of the Son with the Father is as explicit in the NT as the interactions between God and Moses in the OT. Hence their inconsistency comes to bear.
So then the OP constructs his/her presupposition of uni-personlism based on what is explicit in the OT then damn every trinitarian because he/she develops a conclusion based on what is explicit in the NT. Uni-personalism is an inference that cannot be proven by what is explicit in the OT BECAUSE of what is explicit in the NT, therefore making their argument an eisegetic implication that denies what is explicit.
It is not a consistent hermeneutic.
The same type of language in the OT, which drives their apologetic, is the SAME type of language used in the NT that should cause them to re-think their apologetic...that is if they wish to remain consistent, and if they think that Christ was sent to reveal the Father....which He does...in the New Testament.
which brings me to my next point...the deity of Christ.
In order for Jesus to be God He has to be "personally distinct" from the Father.
Let me say it like this:
In order for Jesus to be God He HAS to be eternal. If He is not eternal, then He is not God in any sense of the word. Since in John 1:1 the Logos is proclaimed to be with God and to be God, the ONLY sufficient explanation is that Jesus, or the pre-incarnate Word, has to be "personally distinct" from the God He's with. If He is just a "plan" (as OP's suggest) then He, or in this case it, is contingent, i.e. a product of mind, and CANNOT be God. This then stands the creative passages credited to Jesus on their head, and denies the very thing that John and Paul wish to establish.
In Colossians 1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
The Supremacy of the Son of God
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
It is clear that the "Him" that Paul is talking about in verse 16 is the Son. This is before the incarnation, thus the Son exhibits creative abilities, meaning He is God, and personal abilities distinct from the Father. To allow this to be meaningful it has to be so. Otherwise we are left with inconsistency.
So in conclusion...
The Father and the Son are nouns that indicate distinct identities. We know this because they act like they are distinct identities, and if they act like that (and we know that God is not in the habit of lying) then they ARE what they act like they are. The OP's problem comes when they equate ontology with identity. Because we are talking about a unique entity (God) then we cannot analogize His revelation away in terms that we think meaningful. We must stay faithful to what He has told us about Him, namely that in some sense He is one and in some sense He is three. He is one in nature, and three in identity.
So the OP's conclusion that if trinitarian's believed that Jesus was the true God then he would be the Father is erroneous for it assumes that just because the Son is God, and the Father is God then the Son must be the Father. Distinct identities cannot be distinct and not distinct, that would be a contradiction. Nor can two identities share ontology and be the same identity, for a singular identity has no need to share with himself. But this is the phenomenon we find in John 10:30 and John 17:5. Two identities sharing, which necessitates distinction and a distinction that MUST be maintained in order to protect the integrity of the text, the identities in question, and the nature being shared.
If the actors (Father and Son) are not distinct then in no sense can they be deity.
Trinitarianism protects the integrity of the identities and the integrity of the deity. In other words when we use the nouns Father, Son and Holy Spirit those nouns have meaning because of their distinct, personal, relational abilities. It also protects the integrity of deity for it substantiates that when God states that He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and when those three portray distinct, personal, relational abilities...then He is not trying to obfuscate His being nor is He being deceitful...and we are not being inconsistent.
Hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation. It is necessary to have a consistent hermeneutic. Sometimes a prejudicial presupposition influences a person's hermeneutic...as in the case of Oneness Pentecostals. Let me elaborate...
They start with the presupposition that God is uni-personal, which causes a hermeneutical inconsistency when one turns to the New Testament writings.
They believe that God is uni-personal because of what is explicit in the Old Testament (OT). It is obvious that when God acts He demonstrates "personal" attributes. He communicates with Moses. He has great affection for David. So forth and so on. This is an explicit account which demands the exegete (interpreter) to apply "personal" attributes to God, therefore concluding that God is "personal." They take the idea of "personal" to mean "uni-personal" or "one person".
But when it comes to the New Testament (NT) the explicit is undermined by their inference. God as one person? It is an implication that denies what is explicit. The interactions of the Son with the Father is as explicit in the NT as the interactions between God and Moses in the OT. Hence their inconsistency comes to bear.
So then the OP constructs his/her presupposition of uni-personlism based on what is explicit in the OT then damn every trinitarian because he/she develops a conclusion based on what is explicit in the NT. Uni-personalism is an inference that cannot be proven by what is explicit in the OT BECAUSE of what is explicit in the NT, therefore making their argument an eisegetic implication that denies what is explicit.
It is not a consistent hermeneutic.
The same type of language in the OT, which drives their apologetic, is the SAME type of language used in the NT that should cause them to re-think their apologetic...that is if they wish to remain consistent, and if they think that Christ was sent to reveal the Father....which He does...in the New Testament.
which brings me to my next point...the deity of Christ.
In order for Jesus to be God He has to be "personally distinct" from the Father.
Let me say it like this:
In order for Jesus to be God He HAS to be eternal. If He is not eternal, then He is not God in any sense of the word. Since in John 1:1 the Logos is proclaimed to be with God and to be God, the ONLY sufficient explanation is that Jesus, or the pre-incarnate Word, has to be "personally distinct" from the God He's with. If He is just a "plan" (as OP's suggest) then He, or in this case it, is contingent, i.e. a product of mind, and CANNOT be God. This then stands the creative passages credited to Jesus on their head, and denies the very thing that John and Paul wish to establish.
In Colossians 1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
The Supremacy of the Son of God
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
It is clear that the "Him" that Paul is talking about in verse 16 is the Son. This is before the incarnation, thus the Son exhibits creative abilities, meaning He is God, and personal abilities distinct from the Father. To allow this to be meaningful it has to be so. Otherwise we are left with inconsistency.
So in conclusion...
The Father and the Son are nouns that indicate distinct identities. We know this because they act like they are distinct identities, and if they act like that (and we know that God is not in the habit of lying) then they ARE what they act like they are. The OP's problem comes when they equate ontology with identity. Because we are talking about a unique entity (God) then we cannot analogize His revelation away in terms that we think meaningful. We must stay faithful to what He has told us about Him, namely that in some sense He is one and in some sense He is three. He is one in nature, and three in identity.
So the OP's conclusion that if trinitarian's believed that Jesus was the true God then he would be the Father is erroneous for it assumes that just because the Son is God, and the Father is God then the Son must be the Father. Distinct identities cannot be distinct and not distinct, that would be a contradiction. Nor can two identities share ontology and be the same identity, for a singular identity has no need to share with himself. But this is the phenomenon we find in John 10:30 and John 17:5. Two identities sharing, which necessitates distinction and a distinction that MUST be maintained in order to protect the integrity of the text, the identities in question, and the nature being shared.
If the actors (Father and Son) are not distinct then in no sense can they be deity.
Trinitarianism protects the integrity of the identities and the integrity of the deity. In other words when we use the nouns Father, Son and Holy Spirit those nouns have meaning because of their distinct, personal, relational abilities. It also protects the integrity of deity for it substantiates that when God states that He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and when those three portray distinct, personal, relational abilities...then He is not trying to obfuscate His being nor is He being deceitful...and we are not being inconsistent.
No comments:
Post a Comment